It is not our business - the business of persons who are staying far, far away from White Russia and the rest of Russia - to solve the White Russian problem. In this respect our voice is just as insignificant as a drop is insignificant in comparison with the ocean. This problem is being solved now by men clad in "svitkas", (Note:- a "svitka" is a kind of long coat made of coarse, homespun material, mostly of a light grey color, worn by the White Russian and Ukrainian peasants. D.S.), and by their leaders who are suffering under the Polish yoke. This solution is accompanied by a pitiless struggle and endless sacrifices made by White Russian peasants and workers and a handful of educated people. The slogan of this struggle is: "Down with the Polish yoke"!

This problem has been solved already to a great extent in that part of White Russia which is free from the domination of the Polish imperialists. That part of White Russia has been granted autonomy, and, like Georgia, Armenia, the Ukraine and some other districts, has been incorporated into the Union of Soviet Republics, which have been consolidated around Russia.

We hold that it is necessary for us to declare that we recognize the autonomy acquired by White Russia as belonging to it by right, and we believe that White Russia has the right to decide what kind of government it should have.

Judging by all the information which we possess, the White Russians who are at present subject to the rule of Poland regard such a solution of this question as the correct one. In that part of White Russia there is conducted an energetic struggle and agitation for the liberation of the White Russians from the Polish yoke and for the incorporation of the Polish provinces with a White Russian population into the White Russian Soviet Republic. In all Russian newspapers published abroad, as well as in those published in Russia and White Russia, we read reports about cases of persons who have fled from the White Russian provinces of Poland in order to free themselves from the Polish yoke and to live in Soviet White Russia, to which autonomy had been granted. Many such cases have been reported in our newspaper which has published letters received by White Russians from their native country.

In this short article we can only give expression to some expectations concerning the future of White Russia and to a certain extent consider the discussion that has been raised about this question in the pages of our paper in the section entitled "The Free Tribune".

Concerning this matter we disagree both with those who do not recognize the necessity of granting autonomy to White Russia (such persons base this opinion on their view that 'there is absolutely no difference between the Russians and the White Russians, and therefore in the future there must be a complete, indivisible fusion of White Russia with the rest of Russia') and with those nationalistically minded elements in White Russia (a handful of extreme 'byelorussophils') who are continually talking about the complete and irrevocable separation of White Russia both from Russia and from Poland.

To the first we can point out the above mentioned already existing fact-namely the fact of the existence of an independent White Russian republic which has joined the Union of Soviet republics; and there is also the other fact that that part of White Russia which has been violently 4torn from Russia by the Polish imperialists is also powerfully drawn towards a union with the Soviet republics. This fact tells us in unmistakable terms that for us, who are living so far away from White Russia and from Russia in general, it is too late and absurd to dispute about this matter. Such disputations can be carried on only by people holding obsolete views.

As to the second class of people, i.e. those who are extreme 'byelorussophils', we can also point out to them the same already existing fact which radically defeats their views about the possibility of the 'separation both from Russia and from Poland', and there are a few other things which we could also bring to their attention.

As to these 'other things' we could quote authoritative data taken from impartial investigators of the White Russian problem: from certain publications by Stukalich, Dovnar-Zapolsky, Sapunov, Stankevich and others. But in a short article it is impossible to quote all these things, and we shall take them up on some other occasion.

According to these data 'White Russia, considered from economical stand-point5, is one of the poorest countries. Its chief riches lies in its forests'.

'There were no favorable conditions for the development of industry in White Russia, because of the scarcity of means of transportation, of capital and- this is the chief point - because of the absence of natural resources'.

'The traits by which White Russians are distinguished from the general mass of Great Russians, (Note: "velikorossy". The Russians are divided into three main branches: "Velikorossy" or Great Russians, "Malorossy" or Little Russians, or Ukrainians, and "Byelorossy" or White Russians. The latter form the great mass of the population of the former Western province of Russia- those of Grodno, Moghilev, Minsk, etc., D.S.), are insignificant. The soil of this part of Russia is not fertile. This country has no access to the sea. Add to this the fact that only a very small part of the population of this region understands the White Russian language; that the White Russian movement had its origin only about twenty years ago; that the mass of the population of this part of Russia declares: 'we are not White Russians; we are simply Russians'; that a 6short time ago the question was discussed whether the White Russians should use in writing and printing the Slavonic or the Latin alphabet; that both as to religion and as to language the great majority of the White Russians are, as if it were, an almost exact copy of the Great Russians; that the really White Russian culture is very poor, in achievements, and that even nations which are not related to Russians - such as Armenians, Georgians, Tartars and others - do not think of separating themselves entirely from Russia - taking all that into consideration one will see clearly that it is useless to talk about a complete separation of White Russia from the rest of Russia.

When such objections are made to the extreme 'byelorussophils', the latter point to Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. But they forget that these nations have very definite individual characteristics, that they are very different from the Great Russians; that the economic and geographic conditions of the countries they inhabit are such that it would have been possible for these nations to separate themselves from Russia a long time ago; that these nations were using their own languages and possessed a culture of their own even during the time when the autocracy was cruelly oppressing them.

Summarizing all that has been said before, we shall add that we welcome heartily the struggle of the White Russians for the liberation from the Polish yoke and the unification of the Polish White Russian provinces with autonomous Soviet White Russia.

We believe that in holding this view we reflect the view held by the whole Russian colony which, in its majority, has expressed the same opinion.

(Note: The author of this editorial, Mr. Scheinman is far from expressing the views of the whole Russian colony on the White Russian problem. In his editorial he gives expression only to his own thoughts, to the thoughts of the leaders of the White Russian group at the head of which were Voronko and Zmagar, and the views of the local bolsheviki - in other words the views of that whole group of people who want to separate a certain part of White Russia from Poland and to incorporate it into Soviet White Russia. The editor, Mr. Scheinman, has always been speaking in the name of the Russian colony without having really the right to do 8so; he has been consciously perverting the view generally held about the White Russian problem, because he was a camouflaged bolshevik. He wrote that which was favorable to the bolsheviki, and was presenting his personal views claiming that they were the views of the whole Russian colony, as if this colony was thinking the same way he did. But in reality the Russian colony had a totally different understanding of the White Russian problem, and did not approve the policy of all this group of separatists.

The American White Russians who form about one half of the Russian colony in the United States do not recognize, in fact, even now the autonomous Soviet White Russia which was artificially created by the bolshevist government. Here in America all the White Russians consider themselves to be Russians, and a great many of them take a very active part in all Russian Societies and organizations. It can be said quite safely that two thirds of all the public work done by Russians in America are conducted and carried out by White Russians. In Russian public life in America the White Russians occupy the first place, being the most 9active workers. This fact shows in an irrefutable way how incorrectly and perversely the editor, Mr. Scheinman, represents the public opinion of the Russian colony as to the White Russian problem when he artificially tries to fit it into the rubric of bolshevist policy.

Besides, the author of the editorial declares that "the Georgians do not think" about breaking away from the bolsheviki. This is far from being so. Georgia has made an attempt to secede from the Union of Soviet Republics and started a rebellion in 1925; but for this attempt the bolsheviki executed 5,000 men who had participated in this rebellion.

Mr.Scheinman for a long time fed the readers of Free Russia and The Russian Herald with the husks of bolshevism. Later he migrated to New York and has been holding for a number of years the office of editor of the Russian newspaper Russkii Golos (The Russian Voice). On the pages of this paper he continues to express consistently bolshevist views, but now he openly abuses the Russian community in America and endeavors to disorganize it.

Is this not strange? The members of the Independent Society were financing the paper Free Russia, and the editor, Mr. Scheinman, contrary to the desires of the majority of the members, was introducing the bolshevist policy into the paper, in spite of the fact that the majority in the organization was inimical to bolshevism. (N.K.)